CRWP-7011-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 CRWP-7011-2026 Decided on: 06.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. ***** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 175 03.10.2022 Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab 15/22(c)/61/85 of NDPS Act 1. The petitioner who has been convicted in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India for issuance of directions in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) and/or to issue directions to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole/furlough for 08 weeks as per Section 3 of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1962 and Amended Act 2015-2016 and Punjab Government Notification dated 13.12.2018 vide no.30- PLA-2018/61. 2. Petitioner’s counsel submits that petitioner has filed an appeal against conviction before this Court bearing number CRA-D-65-2025, which has been admitted by this Court. He further submits that respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, has given report to The Superintendent, New District Jail, Nabha, and rejected his parole vide order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-6), on the grounds given below:- ANJU RANI 2026.07.07 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRWP-7011-2026 2 “After reading the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amloh, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib has written that the petitioner Gurpreet Singh is serving his sentence in the above registered case. Giving details of the cases registered against the mother of this petitioner under 2 different sections and citing the recovery of 04 kg 980 grams of opium and a total of Rs.1,77,000/- fake currency notes from the mother of the petitioner and referring to the family of the said petitioner being involved in anti-social activities and this petitioner coming on parole and selling drugs again, the compaign of the Punjab Government against the war on drugs may be affected. Due to which the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib has rejected the parole application of Gurpreet Singh.” 3. Petitioner is challenging impugned order dated 30.04.2026 on the grounds that same is non speaking order and not based on valid justification for rejecting the case of the petitioner. It is asserted that his conduct during incarceration has been reported to be good and there is no allegation of mis-conduct while in jail. It is asserted that accused was never involved in any activities, which may cause disturbance to the public peace/order or security. It is asserted that petitioner has been falsely involved in present FIR and his appeal is still pending and, therefore, the impugned order declining parole is liable to be set-aside. 4. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer of parole and submits that mother of the petitioner has criminal history and if the petitioner is released on parole, he will indulge in anti- social activities and it may also be prejudicial to the security of the State, therefore, he is not entitled to parole. 5. State has filed the reply and para 5 of the said reply reads as follows:- “That afterward in compliance to Hon'ble Court order, Respondent No. 3 i.e, The District Magistrate of Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order Endst No. 340/Peshi-1 dated 30.04.2026, has rejected the petitioner's request for eight weeks of parole, citing the non-recommendation report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib vide their Letter No. 32928/AC-3 dated 29.04.2026. "AS per the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, 02 cased (FIR No. 80, dated 07.09.2010 under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. Act, additional offence 489 B, 489 C IPC, Police Station Bhadson and FIR No. 04 dated 07.01.2022 U/s 452,323,148,149,506,427 IPC, Police Station Amloh) are also registered against the mother of petitioner Gurpreet Singh. The family of the said petitioner Gurpreet Singh has been involved in anti-social activities, further due to which the drive initiated by the Punjab Government, War against drugs “Yudh Nashian ANJU RANI 2026.07.07 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRWP-7011-2026 3 Virudh”, will also be affected.” A true translated copy of the report of Senior Superintendent of Police Fatehgarh Sahib Dated 29.04.2026 and orders of District Magistrate Fatehgarh Sahib Dated 30.04.2026 is annexed herewith as Annexure RT-2 and RT-3 respectively. 6. 6. As per the reply filed by the State, mother of the petitioner has criminal history. 7. Petitioner’s counsel submits that petitioner’s conduct during incarceration has been reported to be good and there is no allegation of mis-conduct while in jail. It is asserted that accused was never involved in any activities, which may cause disturbance to the public peace/order or security. It is asserted that petitioner has been falsely involved in present FIR and his appeal is still pending and, therefore, the impugned order declining parole is liable to be set- aside. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Facts noted above are not in dispute in the present case. The case of petitioner for release of parole has been declined on the above mentioned ground, however, respondents have failed to justify conclusion drawn by District Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, as to on what basis petitioner can be considered to involve in anti-social activities. 10. In ‘Narinder Singh @ Nindi Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2020 (2) DC (Narcotics) 253, provisions of 1962 Act were held to be beneficial in nature and were held to be aimed at reformation and rehabilitation of the prisoners. Parole is granted not only in an emergent situation but also for purpose of socializing with family members. It is necessary for a convict to maintain a contact with society which will facilitate his reformation and absorption in society after his release. 11. Manner in which authorities are required to record satisfaction of danger to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order is not res integra. In ‘Jassa Singh @ Jassa Vs. State of Punjab’ 2016 (5) RCR (Criminal) 522 a Division Bench of this Court had observed as under:- “……..For reaching satisfaction of danger to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order there has to be material before the District Magistrate, for consideration as to whether the release of a prisoner would be a threat to either or both of them. Parole cannot be denied and in fact is not liable to be denied on mere generalization by recording that generally it has been seen that prisoners on release generally engage themselves in smuggling activities causing danger to security of the country and contraband are again recovered from them. This can be ensured by asking ANJU RANI 2026.07.07 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRWP-7011-2026 4 the petitioner/prisoner to execute necessary bonds that while on parole he would maintain good behavior and will not indulge in any smuggling activities, besides, asking him to furnish heavy surety.” 12. Similarly in “Bansi Lal Versus State of Punjab and others”, 2016 (4) RCR (Criminal) 1017, this Court had also observed as under: - “15. The term 'Security of the State' out of the expressions of 'law and order', and 'public order' is considered more grave. It may arise from within or outside the State. It is generally understood as an act of aggression from outside, or militant and terrorists operations engineered by foreign agencies. It can also be effected by passing of classified information like documents, secrets, maps etc. to foreign countries or through undesirable foreign links. An act which poses a threat to the State is to be considered as a threat affecting the security of the State. 'Public order', however, is synonymous with public safety. It is something more than mere law and order. Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder. Maintenance of public order is intended to prevent grave public disorder, which is not the same as maintenance of law and order. The latter is comparatively of a lesser gravity and in fact of local significance. An act which does not affect the public at large or has no impact on it, is not to be taken as an act affecting maintenance of public order. The distinction between law and order and public order is one of degree and extent of reach of the act in question on society. In the case of breach of law and order it affects individuals directly involved as distinct from the public at large. This would raise a law and order problem only. The true test is the potentiality of the act in question. One act may affect some individuals and local persons while another though of a similar nature may impact the public at large. An act which disturbs the even tempo of life of the public at large affects the maintenance of public order. These aspects are to be considered by the concerned District Magistrates and competent authorities under Act while deciding to recommend or not to recommend the temporary release of a prisoner on parole and/or passing orders for temporary release by the competent authorities under the Act. The exercise is not to be lightly conducted and the concerned District Magistrate and/or the competent authorities are to apply their mind on the basis of inputs received by them for recommending or passing an order as the case may be for temporary release of prisoners on parole.” 13. On consideration of present case, we find that no such satisfaction has been recorded by District Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, as to justify conclusion noted in impugned order dated 30.04.2026. There is no material to indicate that if the petitioner is released on parole, he would involve himself in anti-social activities, due to which the drive initiated by the Punjab Government, War against drugs “Yudh Nashian Virudh”, will be affected. The apprehension expressed by authorities vide impugned order dated 30.04.2026 is without any basis and result ANJU RANI 2026.07.07 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRWP-7011-2026 5 of surmises and conjectures. The grounds for rejection of parole are not well founded. 14. Accordingly, petition is allowed. 15. Impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) is set-aside. The Superintendent, New District Jail, Nabha, is directed to again consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with rules and if he is entitled to parole, the reasoning given i.e. “The family of the said petitioner Gupreet Singh has been involved in anti-social activities, further due to which the drive initiated by the Punjab Government, War against drugs “Yudh Nashian Virudh”, will also be affected.” shall not be made unless it is substantiated by the investigation and other materials. The application be decided on or before 31.07.2026 positively. Pending applications if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) JUDGE 06.07.2026 Anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable? Yes ANJU RANI 2026.07.07 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh